¶ … Ethics Dr. Paul Hunter's Refusal

The Case of Dr. Lukwiya

Justification of the Pressure of health Care

Dr. Paul Hunter's Refusal:

Dr Hunter was very straightforward about admitting that he was afraid to treat the patient with monleypox. He did not mince words in saying that he was concerned that if he touched the patient he might get infected with the disease and in turn would end up infecting his children who were under the age 11. He was in fact happy that when the patient tasked himself to be transferred. The doctor tried and stayed away from the patient as much as possible and hence he did not even touch the patient even though he made regular visits to the isolation ward of the hospital. His primary concern was the safety and the life of his children because being doctor he very well knew the threat to life that the disease could pose. He wanted his children and family to live and not die due to the contamination of the disease. He even asked the hospital authorities to select someone without children for treating such patients the next time.

The ethical theory or argument that Dr. Hunter seems to have followed is the rights-based ethical theories that stresses utmost importance to the rights of person -- natural, legal, human, etc., while deciding on what is ethically and morally correct or wrong.

Individuals and as social entities have certain rights and they should ethically be treated according to the rights that they deserve is the primary basis of the rights-based ethical claims. It would be unethical, according to this theory not to treat them according to the rights that they possess.

There are two primary forms of rights according to the rights-based ethical theories - natural and conventional.

Rights that are acquired by an individual by virtue of humanity and are equally and universally applicable to all humans is known as natural rights are those that are. Such natural rights include rights to life, rights to be treated in a just and equitable manner and right to be heard and be heard.

Conventional rights are those ethical rights that are acquired by individuals acquire over time and by virtue of being in a particular society and are created by humans. The context of such rights lies, in general, in the social and political organizations.

The rights-based ethical theory also considers the negative and positive rights. The duty on another person that pertains to noninterference on others or the life of others is called negative rights like the right not to kill someone. On the other hand positive rights are the ones that impose duties of assistance on others.

In the case of Dr. Hunter he exercised his natural rights as well as the natural rights of his children to live as the ethical background to his decision not to treat the patient. According ot the natural right of ethics theory, an individual -- in this case both Dr. Hunter and his children, has a right to live and not be threatened by another person even unknowingly. Dr. Hunter wants to safeguard the natural rights life that he and his children have acquired for themselves by simply being humans. The doctor wanted to ensure that the patient did not infect him and subsequently his children with the lie threatening disease and in this manner he protected the life of himself and his children. Therefore it can be said that the doctor exercised his ethical right of life and this ethical theory can be used to justify the actions of the doctor (Michael Boylan, Basic Ethics (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2000).

The Case of Dr. Lukwiya

Dr. Matthew Lukwiya risked his life to serve the patients of Ebola virus in Africa. He not only took care of the patients till as long as he physically could but also encouraged the nurses and other health care professional to work in a similar manner. He was completely aware of the dangers of the disease and that the disease did not have any medicine and no vaccines. Being a doctor he also knew the exact consequences of the disease. Dr. Lukwiya was also aware f the manner in which the disease could spread -- through touch, and though he took precautions to prevent himself from getting infected, he would never shy away from treating a patient even with a certain degree of risk of getting infected.

He even stayed away from his family and prevented them from coming to his hospital and he himself did not go over to meet them. However he never stopped treating patients with Ebola despite knowing the risks attached to his treating them.

The...

Lukwiya is the duty-based ethical theory also known as the deontology which is completely focused on the right and wrong of an action and does not take into account the consequences that such an action would result in.
This theory of ethics advocates following or conducting actions that are universally accepted to be right irrespective of the rewards or punishments that may follow. The actions that are considered to be right universally would include not telling lies even if a lie saved a life.

The duty that an individual has to perform with regards to universally accepted notions of right and wrong is stressed by this theory and is thus a called a duty based theory (Graham, 2004). Proponents of this theory stress that actions should be done according to human reasoning and good will where good will is described as the will that obeys the universal moral law (Paine, 2000).

Therefore in the case at hand of Dr. Lukwiya, his actions can be ethically explained by the duty-based ethical theory. The doctor thought it to be his duty to serve and take care of the patients and the sick even though it could have been life threatening for him. The action -- his deciding to stay back and treat the patients attacked by Ebola virus, were based on his goodwill and human reasoning and even though he was aware of the consequences of the action -- possible life threatening situation for himself, his action was not influenced by the consequences and thus he continued to serve the patients.

Justification of the Pressure of health Care

Health care professionals are often pressurized to work in potentially life threatening environments and conditions. In this condition, it is the individuals who face the threat. It is the call of duty of health care professionals and the nurses that justifies the pressurizing. The authorities who pressurize the health care professionals to undertake tasks in potentially life threatening situations say that the health professionals -- especially the doctors and the nurses have a duty and a pledge to take care of the sick and to provide relief to the ill. For example one of the ethical duties of a nurse states that a nurse in all professional relationships, practices with compassion and respect for the inherent dignity, worth, and uniqueness of every individual, unrestricted by considerations of social or economic status, personal attributes, or the nature of health problems. Similar ethical values also apply to doctors as well.

In case if I am placed in such a life threatening situation and have to decide I would use the consequentialism theory of ethics to decide. I would act in a manner so that I can provide as much of care with compassion as possible according to the theory. The consequentialism theory of ethics states that the consequences of an action are the main considerations for an action and the ethical considerations are based on the ultimate consequences of the action (Paine, 2000). According to the theory the assessment of whether an action is right or wrong needs to be made considering the ultimate happiness that the action would result in.

This theory stresses on the fact consequences and states that an action would be deemed to be right when that action produces more total utility for the group as a result of the action than any other alternatives (Boylan, 2000). The ultimate aim of consequentialism or utilitarianism theory of ethics is the best result for the greatest number (Graham, 2004).

Therefore in a case where I would have to face a situation of life threatening proportions, I would take care of the patient till such time that I realize that putting myself in danger would ultimately bring in greater happiness and a desired consequence to my action.

References

Boylan, Michael. Basic Ethics. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2000.

Boylan, Michael. Medical Ethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000.

Edward Freeman, R., Gianfranco Rusconi, Silvana Signori, and Alan Strudler. 'Stakeholder Theory(Ies): Ethical Ideas And Managerial Action'. J Bus Ethics 109, no. 1 (2012): 1-2.

Graham, Gordon. Eight Theories Of Ethics. London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, 2004.

Miller, Seumas, and Michael J Selgelid. Ethical And Philosophical Consideration Of The Dual-Use Dilemma In The Biological Sciences. [New York]: Springer, 2008.

Michael Boylan, Basic Ethics (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2000). Michael Boylan, Medical Ethics (Upper Saddle River,…